Montgomery had moments of dash on the battlefield. After El Alamein, the 8th Army chased the Africa Korps 1500 miles all the way to Tunisia. British troops took the key cities of Tunis and Bizerte ending the campaign there. Montgomery's rapid push up the Italian boot put pressure on the German forces encircling the Allied landings at Salerno. During the D-Day breakout, while Patton advanced to the Meuse and Saar, Monty's forces pushed 200 miles through Belgium in four days.

@whirving

2 жыл бұрын

Yes but he so often was so very turgid in his actions that opportunities were bypassed for organization's sake. So easy for me to second guess this though, ultimately he was consistent and his soldiers liked him and that says a whole lot. One of the best parts when I visited the Imperial War Museum London was seeing his staff car next to an artillery piece and Rommel's war map, all within 20 feet of each other.

@ArcticTemper

Жыл бұрын

@@whirving Important to remember he was under immense pressure from Churchill to minimise casualties in a way that would bring out the cautious side of all but the most reckless commanders. I think when you consider how few losses he took, especially compared to WW1 & 1940 (both of which Monty was a veteran of) his slowness at times can be forgiven.

Anyone else expect to hear Chef John after those first few notes of the intro?

I really enjoyed this! There's not much out there about Kasserine so this was really great to finally get some details on what exactly happened. Thanks for taking the time to produce and post this.

My uncle's brother was captured at the Kasserine Pass and spent the rest of the war in Nazi POW camps. Thank you for the video.

@Piledriver2235

Жыл бұрын

My grandfather was 26th infantry 1div left behind to delay the Germans during the retreat. Fought til the ammunition was gone, then captured and spent 30 months a POW.

Great analysis of the Tunisian Campaign.

Numerical superiority doesn't always tell the whole story. The German defenses at El Alamein consisted of thick mine belts covered by dug-in artillery, anti-tank artillery and machineguns in camouflaged emplacements. In reserve were the 15th and 21st panzer divisions ready to counterattack. The British could only attack along narrow corridors where their engineers had cleared the mines. Hence, their greater numbers were greatly neutralized.

@TDL-xg5nn

2 жыл бұрын

Neutralized for only a short time. The German also had no fuel for their tanks and could not replace their losses.

The assesment of higher American commanders fits very well, with Jörg Muth's conclusions in his "Command Culture" analysis and comparison of the American and German officer education from 1919 till 1940. I highly recommend it to anyone interested.

It interesting that in most popular accounts of the Battles at Kasserine Pass on KZread and in books & articles, the focus is on the initial battles from Feb 14-19 when US Army forces were defeated by larger, more experienced and more powerful German forces. Usually, little attention is paid to the battles that occurred on Feb 20-22. On 20 Feb, Rommel divided his forces and simultaneously attacked Thala, Sbiba and Tebessa in the Kasserine Pass area. His forces were defeated in all three engagements. The German withdrawal order was issued on 22 Feb 1943 after these defeats. According to Citino, Rommel would later write about Kasserine and say that, "Die Amerikaner hatten sich vorzüglich geschlagen" -- "the Americans had fought brilliantly."

Very interesting, thanks for the upload. I was unaware about Lloyd Fredendall's role so that was news to me. Alanbrooke, while a harsh critic, seems to have read most of the people he met quite well. Monty is something of an enigma. His lack of tact and his ridiculous attempts at both enlarging his own exploits and belittling those of others, makes it hard to determine his real value as an army commander.

@robertholden3121

8 жыл бұрын

In my opinion, Monty was competent, but not very imaginative. He was fit for an army command, but nothing higher. With regard to his "concentrated thrust" strategy following the D-Day breakout, I lean toward the contrarian opinion that it would have made the task of the defense much easier. Therefore I see Eisenhower's "broad front" strategy as the better option. The common sense logic of the latter is that the attacker retains flexibility by being able to redirect his attacks to different parts of the front if the current attacks stall. Montgomery's "Market Garden" plan was far too ambitious. As Bradley points out in his second memoir, "A General's Story", any Allied thrust along the coast would result in some of the German infantry forces retreating into the coastal fortified towns. As British-Canadian forces advanced along the coast, they would have to peel more and more men from the attack to form a flank against these German positions. Thus, the momentum of Monty's attack would inevitably grind to a halt. The plan had some merit in that the Allied airborne forces to be used in seizing the first three rivers in front of British lines were not too far from from friendly relief. But as Cornelius Ryan points out, Arnhem was a bridge too far.

@JosipRadnik1

8 жыл бұрын

With all due respect sir, but your are quite wrong in most of your assumptions exept the fact that Market Garden was too ambitious, given the forces he had at hand and the time and circumstances when it was executed. The single thrust strategy was actually the right thing in my true and honest opinion, for various reasons: 1. Once the german western front had collapsed after the allied breakout from Normandy and the german defeat at Fallaise - If allied troops had concentrated their power and if they had kept heading along the coast towards the northern part of the rhine and beyond - Marked garden would never had to be planned as it was and the rhine would very likely have been crossed before serious geman resistance could have had the chance to grab a hold west of the river. 2. In the whole area east and west of the rhine, from the south of belgium all the way down to the swiss border the terrain is in general very hilly with only a few narrow ways to pass from east to west and with the rhine as a major obstacle in any army's way throughout its entire lenght. This terrain did greatly help the defending force, west AND east of the rhine. One perfect example was Remagen. Just take a map and look whats beyond this town. Once you have crossed the river, you still have to cross large forrests in hilly terrain with little roads before you would reach open territory. There's hardly enough room for maneuver to push anything but a handful of divisions through and therefor, this could never have worked as main thrust, only as a diversion. This is also why no strategic planner in any army of the first nor the second world war (exept maybe in Eisenhovers staff) ever seriously considered leading his offensive through there and that was why all those fortifications were built at the entrances and exits to this area while troops were concentrated in the open plains north of it. There you'll find lots of open country once you manage to get past the rhine. It is quite obvious that the northern part of the rhine in the netherlands should be clearly favoured by someone having numerical superiority, mobility and superiority in the air. 3. As the Allies had complete control over sea and air, their main tasks would have been to secure ports. once they would have made accessable to supply by sea, they would have formed formidable bases for potential pockets of resistance, if the germans would have dared to counterattack (as they finally did in the ardennes). This would have meant, that - even if german troops would have managed to temporarely cut allied communications between - lets say - antwerp and France at some point, the forward Allied body would still have been able to be supplied by ship while german troops would have had to expose themselves in open territory, beeing vulnerable from air attacks and counter encirclement. So if allied troops would have stayed together and aimed directly to cross the rhine somewhere in holland, close to the north sea, the so called "norddeutsche Tiefebene" would have been open all the way to berlin. this area also was the place where most of germany's industry was at that time, not to mention all the V1/V2 launching sites and all those german ports with their U-Boats production facillities too. Canadian, British and American Troops put together, there would have been sufficient to lead the attack while simoultaneusly mop up the coastal area, securing entrance to the port and securing the southern flank. As this strategy was in large already worked out and loudly advocated for by Montgomery, this would have also meant that this operation would have naturally been put under Montgomery's command. That was were trouble started, at least from amercian perspective. So in the end, dispersing troops to conquer this territory which cold never be more than 2nd rate objectives was not very reasonable, taking only strategic needs into considereation. It is very likely that it was mainly chosen by Eisenhower out of domestic political considereations. After Normandy, American forces kept increasing while british and commonwealth troops had already reached their peak. With the majority of troops delivered by the US, there was an reasonable demand by the american public to have their troops lead by american generals. Ad to this the eagerness of some american Generals to gain as much "glory" points as possible (probably with a further post war career in mind), adding to this Montgomery's very awkward and at times outright insulting way of expressing his positions makes Eisenhowers decision understandable from his personal position, but only from that view. Not from military logic.

@robertholden3121

8 жыл бұрын

I should qualify my remark about "Market Garden". It succeeded in breaching three rivers lines and advanced the Allied front, so it was really more of a victory than a defeat. The problem with the single thrust strategy is that it entailed an advance from a salient position, a salient being a bulge into hostile territory. We should characterize this bulge as having a front pointed at the enemy and two flanks on either side. As an attack launched from the front of the salient proceeds, the flanks become longer and longer, requiring more and more troops to hold them. At some point, this process diminishes the attack. Since the British had one flank secured by the sea, the extended flank problem would be less, but still in effect. This does not necessarily refute the concentrated approach concept. I will simply say the broad front approach has strong merits. When pushing on a broad front, whenever one portion meets resistance, one has the option of transferring the attack elsewhere. Also, with the broad front, the problem of long defensive flanks are avoided. Following the breakthrough at Avanches, the Allied forces raced unopposed all the way to the German frontier during August. But in my opinion, by September, the logistical strain was too much. It was time to halt, establish forward supply dumps and capture Antwerp. So regardless of whether the Allies attacked as a concentrated force or were more dispersed, they would have faced the same problem. In his book, "Panzer Battles", Mellenthin comments that if the Allies had concentrated their attack, the Germans would have similarly concentrated their defense. Having said that, Monty was a good general who made very few mistakes. As for my American colleagues who berate him, they haven't put in enough study.

@robertholden3121

8 жыл бұрын

I must retract on the British northern flank being secured by the sea. There were a large number of German troops withdrawing along the coast following the Allied July breakout. These presented enough of a threat to require a defensive wing here as well. Hence, the concentrated thrust strategy would have required two long defensive flanks.

@robertholden3121

8 жыл бұрын

Further commentary on Montgomery's concentrated thrust strategy. When the Allied forces broke out of Normandy in July, 1944, the German 15th Army began to withdraw along the coast. In addition, two SS panzer divisions (9th and 10th) were refitting in the Arnhem area. So German forces in the north were not negligible. The terrain in Holland along the coast is interspersed by woods and swampland not conducive to a rapid advance.

At 10:56 Captain Jacobs is speaking of the French XIX division. The Flag on the screen is that of Italy, not France. What other errors did everyone find in this presentation? I notice a number of comments that are highly critical of Montgomery, but why was it the Americans had their asses handed to them at Kasserine?

Monty "undertook a lumbering unimaginative pursuit" I would suggest that it was precisely Monty`s Imagination (and experinces of others that had faced Rommel) that led him to be cautious. Unlike Stillwell and Patton, he was unwilling to foot a huge butchers bill if it could be avoided..

@stevecochrane3491

9 жыл бұрын

The problem with that is sometimes a large butchers bill from one big attack, is better then a long protracted campaign. with many more dead.

@paulweston4829

9 жыл бұрын

Steve Cochrane Except Britain couldn`t afford a large Butchers bill after the experinces of the first world war. The British public would presumably i.e not tolerate an other bucthers bill on par with the Somme.Nor would Monty himself , (who had - been left for dead in 1914 after being shot through the lungs - and yet still continued to serve out the rest of the war ) He was also sickened by the waste in human lives.. It can probably be argued that the quick French capitulation of 1940 was in part due to their mind boggling losses during ww1 Also Monty, knew the Allied landings in Tunisia were imminent and perhaps, he saw no reason driving Rommels Afrika Corps headlong into the arriving allies or perhaps he envisioned a giant pincer movement between the allied forces????. There also must have been logistical issues. After all,first the Italians then the Brits and finally the Germans were all thrown back hundreds of miles after their initial successes. All except Monty, who, lumbering or not, was never forced back.due to lack of surplies.

@stevecochrane3491

9 жыл бұрын

***** They still should have fought harder. After Gudarian took Sedan in 1940, an entire French army in Belgium through down their arms and decided to walk home. French officers who tried to stop them were killed. This action left the British Expeditionary forces right flank exposed, forcing it to fall back at Dunkirk.

@paulweston4829

9 жыл бұрын

Steve Cochrane Yes that and the surrender of the Belguim army on their left flank made the BEFs position untenable..

@chucku.farleyii3181

9 жыл бұрын

Steve Cochrane Maybe the greatest heroes of WWII were the French and Italian infantrymen who refused to stake their lives at the disposal of their national leaders. That fucking dumb ass George W. Bush no doubt saw himself as Churchill's heroic heir when he invaded Iraq and killed a fifth of a million people and created a mess that is still killing people. Maybe, the Frenchmen and Italian of 1940 know something we should learn. Our leaders are not fit for dedication of our young soldiers. Give them a hammer to walk around with and, not so very infrequently, they's strike something with it and French, Italians and American infantrymen die alone with many more times civilians. I think there should be statues to the Frenchmen who refused to serve their incompetent war leaders. If they didn't value their lives, their leaders sure weren't going to.

Well done, an entertaining and informative analysis.

A bit too critical of Montgomery's frontal attack at El Alamein. There was no other way to go with the German northern flank anchored by the Mediterranean Sea and the southern by the Quatara Depression.

Yes, from a present day perspective, it is understood that General Fredendall was 'fired' after Kasserine which, indeed, he was. However, its interesting to note that from a 1943 perspective, at least for the American public, General Fredendall was promoted to lieutenant general and assigned to command of the US Second Army and greeted (and treated) back in the United States as a hero. The country needed heroes at this stage of the war and whilst relegated to training troops which he excelled at, he was never given another combat command, but yet publicly touted as a hero.

@VunderGuy

2 жыл бұрын

*While relegated. Whilst is a limeyism. Mind your shibboleth.

Truly excellent presentation!

General Robinett self published his memoirs from Ireland through North Africa in his book titled, 'Armored Command'. I received my used copy on line at Amazon but was shocked to discover that it had a personal letter to General Simmons of WWI in it. I will compare Robinett's take on the battle of the Kasserine, Mateur, and Bizerte to what is presented today, but thus far, I see no animosity being spoken about from the Americans to the British or vice versa. There is however some accusations being said between American leadership to other American leadership. It will be interesting to see how Robinett's take on the Tunisia campaign compares to that of Captain Jacobs. His reporting was informative.

Pity no mention is made of the Italian 5th & 7th Bersaglieri Regiments that cracked open the American defences at Kasserine Pass, overrunning the US 19th Combat Engineers Regiment & no mention is made of the tank battalion of the Centauro Armoured Division that lead the Axis advance through the mountain pass, before German units swung south & north to attack Thala & Tebessa.

Alanbrooke was also from Ulster as was Monty and as mentioned Alexander.....

A very intense presentation, about a land campaign by a retired Naval Captain. It's been said that Doctors bury their mistakes. This applies to Generals too. I'm undecided about how balanced his presentation is, especially when after Kasserine, Rommels attack at Medenine was decisively defeated, but he bad mouths Brits and Americans in more or less equal measure. That the US Army had expanded massively and that this was its first campaign in Europe, might have helped the listener understand events. Reference to the balance of forces at Alamein misses the point, especially if you are a squaddie or a GI hoping to survive. Far more photos showing the mountainous terrain would also have helped. And yes my Dad was at Mareth, Enfidaville , Salerno, Anzio and the Gothic Line, in the 56 Div, as a stretcher bearer.....remember he who runs away, lives to fight another day.

@rullangaar

8 жыл бұрын

+Brian Griffiths "this was its first campaign in Europe"? Last time I checked Tunisia was in Africa.

@Peorhum

7 жыл бұрын

I think he uses the term Europe loosely as in compared to the pacific war. He is right though, this was the US forces 1st action for the most part while the British had been fighting since 39. I agree more photos showing the terrain would not have hurt. Terrain is so important in warfare.

@michaelmcneil4168

7 жыл бұрын

But nobody can disparage any Generals erroneously if they tell the truth about US military. it is difficult not to agree with German concepts of their abilities prior to 1941. And almost impossible to do anything else afterwards.

Ah More American Montgomery bashing. It gets old. Contrary to the opening claims about Montys "lumbering unimaginative" persuit after El Alamein, in fact the 8th Army advanced a staggering 1,300km in just 20 days from November 4th to 23rd. From Alamein to El Agheila. This was the fastest allied advance after fighting a major gruelling battle in all of WW2. After this, Benghazi had to be repaired as a port otherwise the 8th Army would have been looking at a 2,000 km supply line all the way back to Alexandria. And that of course would have been idiotic. The repair needed to repair Benghazi resulted in the slowness after that. A much smaller, less encumbered and lighter force is always going to be a step ahead. This happened all through the war. The Americans certainly didn't capture all those Germans retreating from the Ardennes.

@thevillaaston7811

21 күн бұрын

Great stuff Lyndon.

@lyndoncmp5751

21 күн бұрын

@@thevillaaston7811 Cheers mate. Next time someone complains why Montgomery didn't capture the Afrika Korps, ask them why 4/5 of the German forces in the Ardennes got away.

I come from kasserine ☺✊

@vincentjohnson3763

4 жыл бұрын

Then you get a pass

@PalleRasmussen

3 жыл бұрын

That was one of the hotbeds of The Arab Spring, how are things there today?

@essersr-7138

3 жыл бұрын

@@PalleRasmussen well actually, i m a tunisian expat and I would qualify my political opinions as a chimera between capitalism mixed with a libertarian p.o.v . I am therefore quite naturally in favor of democracy, especially since Tunisia, even if poor and unknown, is quite simply a pioneer when it comes to social advances of all kinds(the most known exemple bein slavery abolition in 1846). The people in themselves are largely in favor of this system of democracy and why not I mean.. What poses a problem however, is in a way that the people in themselves, even if we have a fairly substantial minority of people qualified in medicine, mathematics, and engineering, we quickly realize that deep Tunisia, beyond being highly conservative, remains very ignorant and in my opinion very immature to be able to welcome any form of democracy. I who have always shouted loud and clear that there can be no better system other than democracy, I quickly realized the obvious as to its limits. When we offer democracy to a population, so that in the end its only wishes are defined by backtracking some the social fields (especially recently with the death penalty which has not been applied for thirty years) and a general indifference against certain constitutional drifts. But for now, with covid and everything, the country is keeping a low profile and take care of other priorities. That is why Tunisia in my opinion, definitely does not deserve its democracy, and it is obviously not for the same reasons as other people, given my political opinions that I had previously explained. :) PS: my english is quite approximate so sry for syntax errors

@zeom76

3 жыл бұрын

@@PalleRasmussen yes. Like every revolution, its worse than before. Unfortunately.

Kesselring was a former Gen in the German air force which is why he used air to get to amd from the front. Flitty? who and the hell can call a guy like ABC flitty? Like wow!!! The greatest Admiral the RN likely had since Nelson and this twit calls him flitty? Cunningham is a legend, he was a tiger!!! PS the main reason the British officers were in such important positions is because they have been fighting since 1939. The US had just joined the war at this point.

@zettle2345

7 жыл бұрын

Peorhum, uhhmm the Germans didn't attack France until may of 1940. Just who were the British fighting in 1939? Cause I've only heard about the phoney war, or the sitzkrieg...

@Peorhum

7 жыл бұрын

The phoney war was was more only the army and even then there was some small scale fighting. Plus you had Norway. The RN was at war from almost the start as was the RAF. That said the point was the British had been at war since 1939, the US did not join the war until late 41. Which means the US had no officers with recent combat experience as for the most part. Even if you want to see the invasion of France as the start of the army war that is still more war experience then US officers, which is why they were so senior.

@zettle2345

7 жыл бұрын

My question was not about officers or experience. My question was about your claim that Britian was fighting in 1939. Norway wasn't attacked by Germany til april 1940. The British laid mines in Nuetral Norwegian waters in March 1940. why do you continue to say 1939??? do you understand my question now?

@Peorhum

7 жыл бұрын

My point was that the British forces...in general...had been fighting a war since 1939, as I said the RN and RAF was in it almost from day one. The HMS Courageous was sunk in the 1st week. The officers that had such important roles on the allied staff were RN and RAF. As I said the main army war started in 40 but that WASN'T MY POINT!!!! The US armed forces excluding some naval forces did not join the war until pearl harbour. My point is the war started for Britain in 39, the war started for the US in late 41, which is why they had the more important positions! As I said even if you want to think the British war started in May 40, that is still sooner then Dec 41. Do you understand my point now?

@zettle2345

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you, you made me go looking for stats. I found scapa flow? in October. sorry about spelling. I'm going to look some more to find out when the British navy first fought Italy and Vichy French. Yes, I understood the reasoning as to why British officers were in command positions. The hardest part for me to remember is the dates of different battles. I keep telling myself I will make a chronological time line, but I never do. lol Being American it's he// to keep battles in correct sequence from ETO to Pacific. I know Aussie's beat Japanese at Milne Bay, after they left Tobruk, and El Alamien was after Stalingrad... I just forget where battles fit in, from time to time. Again thanks, and thanks for making me look again for my own answers.

Jacobs is also inaccurate regarding Montgomery's pursuit following the victory at El Alamein. Only a fraction of the Africa Korps made it to Tunisia. The Germans had to rush in substantial reinforcements to hold the position.

Interesting. But I maintain my view.Eisnhower is equally to blame for those defeats.Starting at Faid Pass, Sidi BuSidz then finally Kassarine.

@fuckmemonica

8 жыл бұрын

+rufus Zufall Eisenhower's ability as a general is consistently and fervently promoted by patriotic Americans. He seems to have been a fine man, but not a good general.

The results of The Battle for Tunisia can still be seen to this day. The north of Tunisia is filled with World War II military cemeteries, of both Allied and Axis troops. There is a massive US military cemetery here in the capital Tunis. I recently visited Borj Cedria, which is Tunisia's only German World War II Military Cemetery and the Commonwealth War Graves in Béja & Medjez-el-Bab: kzread.info/dash/bejne/eHeNtqmphJuul7Q.html. I will upload a video of the French and Italian cemeteries at Enfidaville soon. I also just visited the Kasserine Pass, which has a small memorial to the Allied soldiers who died there in February 1943: kzread.info/dash/bejne/oalnpcOHcbHLl9I.html&t

Patton also saw combat in the Punitive Expidition, his combat expericne was not limited to WWI,

@fuckmemonica

8 жыл бұрын

+Mark Stuber The punitive expedition into Mexico consisted of a drive across the desert and a half hour gunfight. To call that serious combat experience would be an exaggeration. But then exaggeration is the staple of the Patton fan.

@markstuber4731

8 жыл бұрын

Bryan Booker Did I say "serious combat experience"? No. I didn't. Setting up straw men is the staple of sophists. Besides, I think most people would take a half-hour gunfight seriously. Some combat experience is more than no combat experience. I have not watched this video in 8 months so I don't remember what particular statement I was refering to and i am not going to sift through an hour of video to figure it out. However, I suspect I was responding to a claim that WWII was Patton's first combat experience. Also, please, put away your bulverism. You have no idea how much of a fan or detractor I am of Patton. YOu just projected on that to me. Bulverism is another staple of sophists.

"skilled public relations and a press hungry for heroes, and you had the circumstance so propitious that even Montgomery and Patton could seem like great commanders."

@seanmac1793

3 жыл бұрын

nobody got there without some merit and I while i wouldn't say they were the best there every was they were more than good enough for their jobs

Field Marshal Alan Brooke had the unenviable job of keeping PM Churchill from micromanaging the war

My father served with the Big Red One from North Africa through the Battle of the Bulge.I do remember him telling me once how really badly things were at the Kasserine Pass...I also remember him telling me how General Patton came to speak to all of them...Fredendall was a lousy General...My father had great admiration for General Terry Allen...

@gregorynasrallah1755

8 жыл бұрын

What regiment? My fathers was in the 18th. at the same time.

@jeffsmith2022

8 жыл бұрын

I know that he was in the 32nd.field artillery battalion...

@gregorynasrallah1755

8 жыл бұрын

Jeff Smith The 32nd. field artillery was attached to the 11th. Division, but they were in the engagements you mentioned.

@jeffsmith2022

8 жыл бұрын

Thank you for the info...

@gregorynasrallah1755

8 жыл бұрын

Jeff Smith Your fathers unit was the first artillery group to fire on the German homeland.

Unity of command was the Germans downfall in this action. The US Field Artillery learned how to effectively mass fires in this fight. Many lessons learned here and the Army became better for it.

Field Marshall Rommel is the only German commander who's grave site is still visited by American tanker's and commanders with respect for his command and skills to the armor corp.

Anybody else look up kasserine because of Pearson from call of duty?

Gen. Fredendall was grossly incompetent, he hid in the rear, didn't listen to officers who'd been to the front, communicated in confusing slang, called soldiers "walking boys" "Pop guns" for artillery. He kept demanding an armored car.

we all bemoan the vile Stalin's treatment of his officer corps in the late 30's prior to the invasion of Russia. However, based on this illuminating lecture - it might be seen that some judicial pruning may have served all the allies and even the German C19th class entrenched conservative military social elitist hierarchies. Their men particularly the allies perhaps deserved and should have expected better. That the US training commander with a penchant for HQ caves and french irregular cavalry in retreat, was awarded with a promotion for his near cowardice instead of demotion shows how complacent the mainly same elite remained in direct contrast to their men and combat promoted socially mobile newer commanders. Many thanks for sharing this Rick Jacobs historical lecture.

@JosipRadnik1

7 жыл бұрын

Well, the problem was: Stalin didn't purge the Red Army from its incompetent leaders because it wasn't about dusting out some century old aristocrat career soldiers like there sat in most european Armies on the beginning of WWI. It was about gaining absolute control over every part of the system. That's why he predominantely targeted independent minds like Tucharevski and saved imbeciles like Budyony just because the former could potentially challenge Stalin's own postition while the latter couldn't. The view able commanders that survived the purge were busy in the far east. The results of this purge were well visible in Finnland in 1940. On the American side, I sometimes get the impression that everyone was uber eager to gain some personal merrits in battle. Maybe they all feared unemployment after the war as they maybe expected the US Army to be reduced to its pre war negligence. Political concerns clearly seemed to influence many generals personal decisions. I guess that's why some of them preferred to liberate already abandoned cities rather than concentrating on pursueing a fleeing enemy army.

@skelejp9982

2 жыл бұрын

Imagine how the French Resistance felt, when French Vichy Admiral François Darlan was designated by the US as French "High Commissioner" in North Africa ...

Could have just emailed us the pdf you are reading

The Allies just didn't seem to learn from the recent past....."Penny Packets" of Tanks instead of concentrated formations....against the panzers..?

whenever americans call Montgomery unimaginative, it sounds like sour grapes. Just look at his record to see how "unimaginative" he was. Even in his first battle at Alam Halfa he took a huge tactical gamble, purposely exposing his own left flank, placing his tanks on the heights, which turned out to be one of the most brilliant moves of the desert war.

@Dimythios

3 жыл бұрын

HOW DARE YOU call that man... that butcher or men a tactical genius... That arrogant @$$ needlessly KILLED thousands of Canadians, Australians, Indians, And Polish that were under his command. He was NOT liked by his peers nor his men. Anyone trying to defend good o' Monty can take a sharp pointy stick and shove it... hard and slow..

@christskingdomiscoming5964

8 ай бұрын

He could learn from his and others mistakes as well, "pressing home the advantage" whilst the enemy was on the run is what caused the failure of many attacks in the North African desert. The legendary Rommel was one of the worst offenders in this regard, often outrunning his supply lines, running out of fuel and ammunition only to be hut with a counter attack and losing hard won ground. Montgomery was Cognizant of this and was keen to not make this same mistake. Of course this is presented as the "over cautious Monty" failing to seize the initiative and letting his enemy escape when he had the opportunity to finish him off.

12:00 always one idiot that doesn’t turn their phone off lol

very informative-the us was lucky not to be defeated in detail here -mainly due to a lack of fuel. If rommel ahd a free hand and went for tebessa then thala it would have been an allied disaster

I found this chat hard to follow. Is that just because I am getting old? O because I can't speak Italian?

@skippy10

9 жыл бұрын

Michael McNeil I also found it hard to follow. Rick Jacobs is not a very good lecturer I think. He was using a sheet of paper to point at stuff on the map for God's sake! Hard to believe someone thought this was worth posting to youtube.

@Peorhum

7 жыл бұрын

always worth listening to another point of view. Doesn't mean you have to believe it.

9:37 "Harold Macmillan, future Prime Minister of England", please learn the difference between England, Britain and the United Kingdom

Funny how Ultra intercepted all of Rommel's battle plans before and after Kasserine Pass, just didn't intercept anything that time. Guess that's why they called Rommel the Desert Fox. Or maybe Churchill and MI6/Ultra gave us the vaseline treatment.

@thevillaaston7811

21 күн бұрын

Get real.

Eisenhower didn't fly; because as you Rock; stated Axis air-power was loose and evident in the areas..Plus a tour an the historic landscape is more effective by car; not airplane..

The Speer head at Kasserine pass was done by the Italians.

@robertholden3121

8 жыл бұрын

It was?

@domdegood5376

7 жыл бұрын

The Centauro division.

@markthecenturion

7 жыл бұрын

Part of it was. The 10th Bersaglieri and the Centauro armored divisions played a major part in the battle.

@michaelmcneil4168

7 жыл бұрын

The German's Italians or the Britishes Italians?

@311nonono

7 жыл бұрын

Yes it was ! But best if don't mention it, cause it will make everybody freak out.

it´s written Thelept, but it´s pronounced Talept.

His speech is what it is but repeating the same old American opinion that Monty's pursuit of Rommel was slow and unimaginative after El Alamein is just plain tedious. A reasonable look at and consideration of the facts reveals the true situation which is not what Americans like to believe. If you want to criticise Generals then try Patton at Metz and Mark Clark pretty well everywhere.

@fuckmemonica

8 жыл бұрын

+R Greenup It is very hard to objectively asses Patton. He has fans who worship him as the very God or War, or despise him as a buffoon. Americans' unreasonable distaste for Montgomery (in this American's opinion perhaps the Western Allies' best general) further complicates things.

@FairladyS130

8 жыл бұрын

+Bryan Booker Just one fact out of several relevant. In the time it took 8th Army to fight their way almost 2000 miles across North Africa, 2 US Corps had established itself in an undefended area and then had been driven back. That's it, that's what they 'accomplished'. How then can Americans criticise Montgomery as slow, it just makes no factual sense.

@timblizzard4226

8 жыл бұрын

+R Greenup Monty's exploitation out of Normandy was amazingly fast; British spearheads captured the HQ of 7th Army and penetrated into Belgium so quickly the Germans didn't even have time to destroy the port facilities at Antwerp.

@timblizzard4226

8 жыл бұрын

+Bryan Booker I think he was the best tactician the allies had, operationally his Normandy campaign was brilliant.

@MrChickennugget360

8 жыл бұрын

+R Greenup no historian ever has said that Lloyd Fredenthal was a good general so i don't think that is a good comparison.

I disagree with Captain Jacobs characterization of Montgomery's advance. The 8th Army pursued Rommel over 1700 miles across inhospitable terrain. That would have required major logistical planning and effort. The 8th Army undertook this after an almost 3 week intense set piece battle where it sustained 14,000 casualties. It emerged victorious. No mean feat. As a military man, Captain Jacobs should have recognised and applauded this major achievement of Montgomery and the 8th Army.

@thevillaaston7811

21 күн бұрын

'As a military man, Captain Jacobs should have recognised and applauded this major achievement of Montgomery and the 8th Army.' An American would do that?............

north africa was a series of bad calls by every commander the winner was the one that recovered the fastest from their mistakes

I came here for the British salt.

What is it with this guy and tailoring?

Why is a former naval person delivering this. Maybe he should stick to explaining how the Navy got caught with their pants down at Pearl Harbor and lost so many Americans.

To be honest, the whole 'inter allied rivalry' undertone of these lectures is an unfortunate distraction from the campaign. Really, who gives a fuck if Americans served under British command, or vice versa? It was hardly something of any real influence operationally. Nonetheless pretty much half of the lecture was devoted to this. I'm an Australian and over a million Australians served under MacArthur, should we have a whole lecture on the South West Pacific campaign and spend half of it bitching about the american media and command not giving the Australians enough credit? This is amateur shit. I mean the emotional and nationalistic driver behind much of his evaluation of British command, for example, is pretty obvious. And even if he has a point, the obvious bias undermines the argument. It seems to me that this whole 'anti-monty' paradigm among many american "historians" is essentially an extension of the ridiculous monty vs patton, quest for glory. Monty was CLEARLY a very capable army and army group commander, as were Patton and Bradley. All of them led very successful campaigns in the med, France and Germany. I mean I hear Americans criticise him for unimaginative frontal assaults on lines which cannot be outflanked, and almost in the same breath say he was too slow and too timid. I mean in Normandy, he utilised operational manoeuvre to unbalance the Germans when they were still numerically stronger in France, and exploited well with 21st army group. Hardly purely a frontal assault, hardly unimaginative, hardly an over reliance on superior force. I dont really hear the same stuff coming from British "historians" trying to undermine Patton, for example. He certainly had plenty of personal and tactical flaws for someone to pick at, yet people don't.

@paulweston4829

8 жыл бұрын

+Tim Blizzard Nice one.

@robertholden3121

8 жыл бұрын

I generally agree. You'll have to cite in detail what failings you feeel Patton suffered from. I can't think of any. As a person, he was an insufferable egomaniac and not well-liked by his men. Not sure what is meant by Monty's use of "operational maneuver" at Normandy. I would characterize those efforts as demonstrations, and yes, they had the effect of drawing in most of the German armor to the British-Canadian front which made possible the American breakout. Monty relied heavily on his artillery, and to give due credit to my British pals, they had a support doctrine which was the best of WW II, Following bombardment, Montgomery would gradually commit his armor, probe for weak points, halt if resistance was too strong and redirect the artillery again and again. The very same "crumling operations" he employed at El Alamein. It was a slow-moving approach emphasizing firepower and conservation of infantry. By this point in the war, British manpower was stretched and replacing losses in the infantry very difficult. Hence, Monty had to be careful with what he had. '

@timblizzard4226

8 жыл бұрын

Robert, i'll have to go over a few things here. There are three levels of warfare - tactical, operational and strategic. The things you are talking about are doctrine being applied at the tactical level - that was the way both the British and the Americans fought in WW2 (and today to a similar extent). They utilised firepower to achieve breakthroughs, ass opposed to the German technique of infiltration. This is at the tactical level of warfare, generally corps/division and below. Thus, it doesn't make a heap of sense to say "Monty" used artillery in the manner you describe, it was just generally how allied doctrine played to their competitive advantage. "Bradley" used exactly the same technique in dealing with German defence in depth around St Lo. By the way your characterisation of British tactics at both el Alamein and Normandy is generally incorrect - the British employed their armour en mass in huge set peice breakthrough operations, not peice meal probing for weaknesses. At the Odon offensive and operation Goodwood the British under Dempsy employed three armoured divisions in massed assaults which were very effective at breaking into German defences in depth. What I mean by 'operational manoeuvre' is manoeuvre at the operational level of warfare. This level can generally be thought of as the theatre wide, or the movement of divisions and corps within the theatre. This was where Monty was most skilled and it is probably the greatest gift he gave to the Normandy campaign. As stated before the invasion began, his general plan of operations at this level of warfare was to compel the Germans to deploy their main offensive strength on the left flank in order to facilitate the American capture of Cherbourg and later the breakout around St Lo. His objective was to force the German armour to be deployed in defence of the Caen and Falaise plain, which was the best terrain for mobile operations offered the direct threat to Paris. He achieved this by maintaining at least two (often four) armoured divisions in reserve in the British sector, and then using this reserve to initiate large, set piece offensives which were timed to force Rommel, von Schweppenburg and finally von Kluge to continually deploy his armour in defence of Caen and Falaise. By doing this Monty convinced the Germans that the allied plan was to breakthrough in the Falaise plain by the British, when the whole time the real threat was posed by the Americans in the Cotentin. Remember Monty was Bradley's commander - he was in charge of all operational level manoeuvre in Normandy. He is directly responsible for the entire allied dispositions in Normandy at this level of warfare until the day Third US Army because operational after Cobra. The whole campaign was conducted under his operational plan, which had been generally outlined as earth as April 1944. Now, we come to Patton. His major fault was his lack of balance at ever level of warfare - he is on the record stating he thought the use of tactical and operational reserves was a waste of resources. During his muse campaign he literally did not have a single battalion in reserve, not 1 battalion. This is a level of aggression which is simply not useful in some situations. During the breakout from Cobra he was the perfect man for the job, and his advance across France was masterful. That truly was the time and the place for a commander who was so disdainful of risk and so relentless in advance. He is in no small part responsible for the scale of the German collapse after the Falaise pocket. Additionally the speed with which he reacted to the Ardennes offensive was excellent. But some times relentless aggression is not what is required, sometimes you need nuance. Sometimes you have to deceive your enemy, sometimes you have to prepare the set piece, sometimes you have to unbalance their dispositions, sometimes you need patience. Patton had none of the above. Additionally, he completely distorted allied strategy after the collapse in Normandy by extending the allied line way too far south and east - the original allied objective was Antwerp and the Aachen sector which was the gateway to the Rhur. Patton extended the line way too far east towards territory of no real strategic value, and then when the allied supply situation became critical, he dispatched officers to steal supplies from other armies further north to maintain Third US army's advance (i can give you references to that if you like?). It was a completely selfish action of a man who clearly viewed his own greatness as more important than wider allied strategy. I'm not sure Monty ever stooped that low. IMHO, Bradley was a much better army group commander.

@robertholden3121

8 жыл бұрын

As much as I loathe Patton, I tend to regard his comment on reserves with a grain of salt. I do recall reading how his command pilfered a huge quantity of fuel from another army, likely Hodges 1st. That shows he was more interested in personal glory than cooperating as part of a team. I would have sacked him for that stunt. I'll always see Monty as more human with a sense of humor. He eventually did put his ego aside. (After driving Ike near-crazy.) Monty's offensives in Normandy were largely demonstrations designed to draw in the German armor. In this, they were successful and allowed the Americans to break out. But while the British assembled their armor en masse, it was committed to battle in small, company-sized units. This was an intelligent plan as there was no point in taking heavy losses over a diversion. The British made good use of their artillery and achieved local breakthroughs. I disagree Patton "distorted" Allied strategy. It was determined that the Allies would push on a broad front and Patton directed his advance where he was told. He certainly wasn't faced with much of a challenge from Herman Balck's Army Group G. Amd he looked less impressive once his supply lines stretched and the terrain became less favorable for a mechanized advance. Patton was capable of a set-piece battle, but it was a kind of warfare not much to his liking. In general, it's not easy finding anything which seriously impeaches him as a commander, but if you read the appendix of his biography "War as I Knew It", his concept of "walking fire" is laughable. The best rebuttals my British pals have against Patton in favor of Montgomery are as follows: 1. It was Montgomery, not Patton, who won the first major Allied victory of the war. 2. It was Montgomery's forces which took Tunis and Bizerte, ending the Tunisian campaign. 3. it was Montgomery, not Patton who was in charge of D-Day planning. 4. It was Montgomery, not Patton, who was in charge of all Allied ground forces during the break-in phase of the Normandy campaign. 5. Ask the Patton buffoons where Patton was during the invasion of mainland Italy? Answer: cooling his fat mouth in the rear. And there you go. :)

@timblizzard4226

8 жыл бұрын

Ok, so a few points here. I'll go through them one by one. 1) You don't have to take Patton's words regarding reserves with a grain of salt. All you have to do is look at his dispositions in any major battle or campaign he was involved in to see that they reflected his views - he never maintained significant operational reserves. Metz, Saarbruken, even Bastogne, all of his divisions were deployed for assault or engaged. 2) Monty was in overall command of all allied forces in Normandy, including all US forces. The whole idea of compelling the Germans to deploy their reserves against the left flank to facilitate the capture of cherbourg and the the breakout around St Lo was his concept. He set the objectives, he set the phase lines, he was responsible for the allocation of resources. Dempsey commanded the offensives launched by second army in line with british doctrine. The actual employment of company sized units was the prerogative of divisional and brigade commanders, not Monty at the HQ of 21st Army Group. 3) I'm not sure what precisely you are referring to claiming that "monty" or "the British" committed their Armour in company sized units. I'm not sure where you are even getting this idea from. The whole point of a massive set piece battle was the commitment of whole regiments to battle simultaneously. Look at any of the major British offensives in Normandy: Operation Epsom, Operation Charnwood, Operation Jupiter, Operation Goodwood. They all entailed the mass, simultaneous employment of entire armored brigades. Yes, these often operated in battalion sized battlegroups, but these were not fed into the battle one by one, but all committed simultaneously. The Germans operated in Kampfguppe as well. 4) The offensives of Second British Army were not demonstrations, but full blown corps level breakthrough operations. Simply driving some tanks around in front of the German lines was not going to compel them to deploy nine of the ten Panzer divisions in Normandy against the British. Only the real threat of imminent breakout by British forces could possibly compel the Germans to dispose their Armour so defensively. It required well-timed and well-executed offensives, with real strength, to force the Germans to do this. The British paid heavily in these offensives, but the Germans more so. Thus the idea wasn't just to fool the Germans by a demonstration, but to FORCE them to react in the way Monty wanted. That is what he achieved. 5) Patton's primary distortion of allied strategy was the logistic burden his continued offensive operations south and east of the primary allied axis of advance. By extending the line farther and farther in this direction he significantly lengthened his lines of communication, and even after ike had stated that Third Army's role was to be defensive and had its supplies reduced, he deliberately got involved in significant combat, which he is on the record stating he did in order to force Ike to give him more supplies. Given the constraints the allies were facing in this area, this was a grave distortion of allied strategy. As for Patton being capable of a set piece, that's a matter of opinion. But there's little evidence that he really had the patience for the meticulous planning such operations required. He certainly never displayed real aptitude for these kinds of endeavors - he preferred much more fluid operations.

Since my grandfather was a soldier who lost part of his foot at the battle of Kasserine Pass, I was interested to watch this. Sorry to say that this guy is *NOT* a dynamic speaker, to say the least. He paused and him-hawed around so much that I would lose him again and again (or should I say he lost me). There were a lot of uh...'s and such, as well as several accidental page turns on the overhead, too. And he is supposed to have been a retired Captain in the US Navy? Oh God, I would have hated to have been standing in a formation on the deck of some aircraft carrier in tropic heat while this guy fumblingly pontificated through some command speech. I know nothing more after watching this than I knew before, except a little more frustration.

@EdwardYaekle

9 жыл бұрын

Agreed

@michaelmcneil4168

7 жыл бұрын

I got the impression he was late to the party and didn't bring a cake. With more time to polish it would have been a top notch effort. Sadly too many duds are posted to KZread just because it's there.

Evidently a respected author. A second rate speaker. Fascinating material. Difficult to listen to. The uhms,ahs, readjustments,pauses and corrections drive me wild.Nervous in movement and speech. Why he punishes himself with a task he is unfit for,puzzles me. I will try another of his lectures,hoping for a better presentation. Good material. Tough to sit through.

@freedomordeath89

5 жыл бұрын

Because who else could talk about the subject' he is one of the biggest researchers alive on these particular subjects. History is not entertainment. Leave good speakers to politics. He is here to give the result of his research, not to entertain us.

@doncooper6801

3 жыл бұрын

Like listening to someone reading a menu.

I have not watched this video, I don't want to see young lives wasted. The Brits told the U.S. troops not to attack as they would be slaughtered. Of course the American officer commanding new better. My father saw what was left return. He gave one GI a mug of tea, the reply - 'how do you drink this shit'. He drank it though.

What a poor analysis and lecture.

@JosipRadnik1

8 жыл бұрын

So tired of this American exeptionalism bullshit. had to stop after about 40 minutes. .

@robertholden3121

8 жыл бұрын

Some unfair comments about Monty, for sure. He's a Navy guy and should therefore stick to ships.

@MrOllievirus

7 жыл бұрын

Monty had his faults (its speculated that he may have had Asperger syndrome), but the main reason why he was so defensive and careful was that he had to be due to an almost political consideration to keep moral up and casualties down. Personally i think the western allies had some great commanders at the Corps level but at the higher echelons command was slow and unimaginative. TBH its only the Russians with commanders like Zhukov that showed any level of competency at the highest levels of command.

@Peorhum

7 жыл бұрын

Never heard anyone put Admiral Cunningham down before...flitty?

@JosipRadnik1

7 жыл бұрын

Admiral Cunningham wasn't American. Sadly, to some "historians" today this is reason enough to destroy his legacy. The aim is to rewrite history so the military-industrial-financial-complex aka the "amercian" Empire can legitimize their dominance by pointing at their glorious past, where the USA - and the USA alone alledigly - was liberating Europe from the Nazis (and the Commies after that). Ignorance isn't wisdom...

This is anti British tripe from a man who knows nothing about Monty earlier.

Not objective neither professional! It's really disappointing, for example, to see in the presentation (min 11) the confusion between french and italian flags! (Putting italian flag in the allied command instead of the french one??!!)

The German forces that went to Kasserine were almost wiped out. American losses were great but they stopped the Germans and destroyed almost all their armored vehicles. The tank destroyer units did their job.

This is just a list of bad "movie" history tropes listed together. Did he do any original research? Or just watch Patton. There are historical "tells", for example "Smiling Al" thing was just something cooked up by Time. I stopped listening, expecting anything new after that, figuring if you couldn't get that right then I had no hope for the rest of it. I got about half way before I started hearing the theme song to patton start playing in this guys head it was so loud.

what aload of Biased American and anti-British crap, the fact is the Americans lost the battle of the Kassarine Pass and it was the British who had the job of retaking the pass.

@robertholden3121

8 жыл бұрын

The traditional standard used to determine who wins a battle is which side commands the battlefield once the fighting stops. Well, the Germans failed to take their objectives and Allied counterattacks drove them back to their jump-off points after a few weeks, No, the 8th Army did not take Kasserine back. The II Corps took care of that on February 24th. Yes, American casualties of 6,500 were much in excess of the enemy. But they were losses that had no effect in the long run.

@johnlafontaine4003

7 жыл бұрын

You must have watched a different video. He was very critical of American commanders. Including a rare personal and visceral criticism of Bradley. He was unflinchingly critical of Eisenhower, and Fredenhall. He spoke very respectfully, and admiringly of British General Sir Alan Brooke. He spoke at length of Brooke's truly amazing career as a combat officer something I had never heard from an American historian. His criticism of Montgomery did not seem over the top or layered with some sort of American bias. It certainly was not out of context.

@charlesinglin

7 жыл бұрын

And how many battles did the British lose and how many commanders did they sack before they started winning? And I don't really see what's so "anti-British" here, other than pointing out that Monty was a slow and methodical commander.

@michaelmcneil4168

7 жыл бұрын

The British only lost the ones Churchill made them fight. Churchill was Britain's Hillary Clinton. Since the British were virtually unarmed during the first half of WWII they tended to stonewall which Churchill did not understand. The fat, incompetent drunk went on to give Stalin full support instead of demanding his execution before any aid and he then should have gone on to demand British oversight in the Eastern Theatre the way Eisenhauer was installed.

@losifstalin6996

7 жыл бұрын

Charles Inglin *ahem* Kenneth Anderson was relieved

the british nothing but a joke during the war,monty LMFAO a third class general at the best, knew nothing of push or tactics.

@rufuszufall5753

10 жыл бұрын

Agreed.As the man said.Totally unimaginative.Whit such a massive superiority in man and especially material.Monty should have broken inside 3-5 days.Not 3-5 week's.Brits say how cleverly they fought at Al Alemain. But in reality it was a joke.And to lose 600 tanks in the process . Unbelievable!

@MRFLESHSTORM

9 жыл бұрын

to keep the peace between allies , every action he tried was a huge failure. he only won in africa because of numbers and the fox was not there.

@paulweston4829

9 жыл бұрын

ALLAN ALIEN thats not keeping the peace mate! Monty beat Rommels Africa Korps more than once also when Rommel was present i.e Alum Halfa. Monty`s Market Garden was far from a success but that aside where did he fail?? At the protracted Battle for Normandy do you think Patton just burst forth without the aid of Monty??? Hell no, Monty drew more and more SS panzers divisions towards his sector (deliberatly or not the result was the same) , and even intercepted and destroyed a German counter attack which would otherwise have rolled up Pattons flank during the American breakout. Monty also lead more American troops (+ his own 21st Army group during the battle of the bulge) than any American General present at the battle. He had to take on the American 1st and 9th Armies because Bradley and his entire senior staff were AWOL and the 1st and 9th had lost communications and any coherent battle order. it was on his battle front (not Pattons) That most of the SS panzer divisions were concentrated and it was only on his battle front where the Krauts were stopped cold and deflected from their.objective. Offcourse in the States he is Malignied as that little limey fart (Pattons description) He helped save the day and made the Yank Generals (not least Bradley) look bad. They hated him for various reasons and have portrayed him negatively or Blacked out his participation in i.e the Battle of the bulge all together. However Von Manteuffel the General of the 5th Panzer army said of him; ".....He (monty) turned a series of isolated (U.S) actions into a coherent battle plan" "It was his refusal to engage in a premature and piecemeal counter - attacks which enabled the Americans to gather there reserves and frustrate the Germans attempts to extend their breakthrough.

@stevecochrane3491

9 жыл бұрын

To be fair Allan the average British soldier was superb. It was the British officer corps that was alot of the times subpar.

@paulweston4829

9 жыл бұрын

Steve Cochrane I wasn`t lionizing Monty as such. I´m just tired of reading ignorant comments, (which are based on the malignant views of American Generals such as Bradley Patton and Ridgeway who had an axe to grind not least after Bradleys failure to act at the battle of the Bulge, resulting in Eisenhower giving Monty overall control of the Majority of the forces involved in that battle). . He (Monty) was a prima dona, no doubt about it - that relished pointing out others mistakes and failed to seee his own, a real pain in the arse that probably did more to jeapodize the working relationship between the allies than any other General, But he certainly wasn`t third rate or second rate for that matter and could act very swiftly when required (which he more than proved during the battle Bulge, when he turned more men around and changed their axis of advance even quicker than Patton`s celebrated sidstep to Bastogne). He was totally professional and knew his bussiness.. American Generals such as Lightning Joe Collins and not least General Bruce Clarke (clarke of St Vith) held him in the highest regard.( Not least after Ridgeway wanted to leave Clarke and about 20,000 other Yanks to their fate in the "goose egg" but was overuled by Monty who had his own ideas how to turn the battle. Which offcourse he did, unknown to most Americans) And as for officers who were sub par during ww2. You Yanks had your fair share of them too. I.e Fredendall, Mark W. Clark,Hodges, Bradley etc. P.s Yes i know about Slim, an all together more sypathetic type of General.